Do you ever see TSA/security checkpoints coming to major Amtrak statio

[Dennis LaGrua]

If my reply ignited a firestorm about the tyrannical TSA, it wasn't intended to insult anyone but it did stimulate conversation on a subject that affects all of us. Whether you agree with my analogy or not, our freedoms and rights are diminishing and this is worrisome. It seems like this should be a concern for most but some people apparently don't mind being subjugated by the promise of safety. As an innocent law abiding person, (who has led an exemplary life), I vehemently object.

Unfortunately, history shows a poor record in the human rights area. Slavery, communism, fascism, the pogroms, anti-Semitism, discrimination, NSA spying, the Patriot Act, NADA, the treatment of the American Indians and the TSA all fit the same authoritarian mindset. The violations of ones human dignity caused by these policies are not all equal in their draconian application but with time things tend to bloom. Its only a matter of time before the TSA requires you to strip completely naked to board a plane. They already X-Ray you, make you empty your pockets, scan you and treat you in a subhuman way. I don't want this for my fellow Amtrak travelers. I will be there speaking out for this injustice.

 

[afigg]

It is rarely a useful discussion when a thread wanders into Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule of N*zi Analogies).

TSA outside of airports are a nuisance in almost all situations and not a good use of taxpayer's money, but so far the security teams are just mostly a nuisance.

edit: link to wikipedia entry on Godwin's Law is getting chopped off. So wiki it on your own for those not familiar with it.

 

[JoeBas]

It is rarely a useful discussion when a thread wanders into Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule of N*zi Analogies).

TSA outside of airports are a nuisance in almost all situations and not a good use of taxpayer's money, but so far the security teams are just mostly a nuisance.

edit: link to wikipedia entry on Godwin's Law is getting chopped off. So wiki it on your own for those not familiar with it.

Agreed with Godwin's law, however that doesn't mean you can't see parallels.

As far as it being just a "nuisance", just got Travelogue notes from a colleague in the Home Office in Norway, visiting us this past week. Sounds like more than a "Nuisance" to me.

Wednesday ... "Back at the airport and through security. I had an train ticket in my pocket that the scanner detected, This triggered next security level and the guy took a hand test on me (swiping a piece of paper in my palms and put it into the machine. The Machine screen went red saying “Explosives detected” – and I was pulled aside. Into a separate locker and a guy with latex gloves.. crazy security.."

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't understand the point in having people go through a TSA checkpoint in Chicago when it's easy enough for someone with nefarious intent to board down the line in Galesburg or some other, smaller station. Additionally, the rail lines are not secure, so someone can easily plant explosives along the rails, under a bridge, etc. Really, the entire thing would be fairly pointless.

Security is a side issue. The goal of a bureaucracy is to grow its budget and power, and in that regard DHS is on a tear. The blue shirt donut eaters are roaming out of the airport terminals and spreading their brand far and wide. They are riding public transportation in several "test/training" projects and it's a safe bet that Amtrak will eventually be blessed with their presence.

That's pretty much what I said, with about 99% less tin-foil-hat-ness.

Your post points out why the TSA would likely be an ineffective deterrent while the reply offers an explanation for why it may happen anyway. The tinfoil hat reference seems rather confusing and unwarranted to me.

 

[Dennis LaGrua]

In the spirit of the great Mahatma Ghandi, passive resistance is the way I choose to go. This is why I have not flown in 10 years. I refuse to give up my inalienable rights just to board a plane and I will no longer travel by train if airport security is instituted..

Additionally, if we wish to correct historical facts here; 1930's Germany, was governed by the very left wing Social Democratic Party. The government controlled and ran everything and there was no free enterprise. That's a government from the left.

If you examine what the US has become, government and the corporate interests have combined into an all powerful ruling force. Combine this with the police state and it's called Fascism.

 

[SarahZ]

Some people here need to keep in mind that flying isn't always a choice, and those of us who fly are not sheep who blindly accept everything the government throws at us. When my employer needs me in Dallas tomorrow, what am I supposed to do? Tell them no? I don't think so.

Ryan's example of visiting his family in Hawaii is another good example of why driving and/or taking the train isn't always feasible.

And how, exactly, is Jis supposed to visit India?

And when I'm a bridesmaid in my friend's wedding, which takes place in Alaska, are you suggesting I take the EB and then drive across Canada? I don't have three weeks of vacation time stored up, nor would I use that much for something like that.

You really can't paint everyone with the same, broad brush. Sometimes, a desire to keep one's job and see one's family overrides the desire to tell the government to smeg off.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's one thing to come up with valid explanations for why people don't curtail their flying or do anything to upset the TSA in person. However, it's a little harder to explain why so few complain to their senators and representatives. This is one of those exceedingly rare issues that supposedly ticks off liberals and conservatives alike. Yet even when there is consensus there is no action. Personally I think the TSA debacle is an example of how our fundamental system of governance itself may be permanently broken.

 

[Ryan]

Personally I think the TSA debacle is an example of how our fundamental system of governance itself may be permanently broken.

I couldn't agree more.

The aggregation of power in the executive branch by the Enabling Acts is *very* similar to the powers (unconstitutionally) granted to the executive branch by the USAPATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation. Both were passed after "acts of terrorism" (in the 1930s case, the Reichstag fire).

Yeah, no. The Enabling Act gave Hitler the power to pass any law he so chose without any oversight or input from the legislative branch. The "PATRIOT" act gives the Executive a whole bunch of powers, but making up laws out of the clear blue sky on any topic ain't one of them.

Edit: The Enabling Act also said (paraphrased) "If you want to make a law that would ordinarily be unconstitutional, that's totally cool with us too. Whatever you want, man. It's all yours, have fun". Arguments about Constitutionality aside, the PATRIOT act at least has to pretend to be Constitutional and is subject to the Judicial Branch's oversight.

 

[Paul CHI]

I don't know why Amtrak should be more of a target than the dozens of commuter trains that use CUS every day. And good luck patting down the 150,000 people who transit CUS on a daily basis. There is, of course, always the risk of a package bomb, but you'd have to hugely inconvenience thousands of people to catch it. Life just has trade-offs between risk and security.

 

[JayPea]

Some people here need to keep in mind that flying isn't always a choice, and those of us who fly are not sheep who blindly accept everything the government throws at us. When my employer needs me in Dallas tomorrow, what am I supposed to do? Tell them no? I don't think so.

Ryan's example of visiting his family in Hawaii is another good example of why driving and/or taking the train isn't always feasible.

And how, exactly, is Jis supposed to visit India?

And when I'm a bridesmaid in my friend's wedding, which takes place in Alaska, are you suggesting I take the EB and then drive across Canada? I don't have three weeks of vacation time stored up, nor would I use that much for something like that.

You really can't paint everyone with the same, broad brush. Sometimes, a desire to keep one's job and see one's family overrides the desire to tell the government to smeg off.

THIS!! I've often said the most annoying thing about flying is being called a sheep, or, alternatively, a sheeple because I choose to do so. I have only so much vacation time available to me, and, for instance, when I want to visit my uncle and his family in Illinois, I have to at least fly one direction so that I have time to visit. If I were to take Amtrak both directions, I would have no time to visit. And I have future trips planned that A) involve travel to Alaska and B) travel to Hawaii, all in the name of my quest to have visited all 50 states. I can't do either, especially go to Hawaii, without flying. Alaska, I guess, is technically feasible, but again it would take far too much time for me to drive there, even from my home here in Eastern Washington. And I don't know why yet again I'm defending my choice to fly. Whether I fly, ride the train, ride a bus, drive, bicycle, walk, or hop backward, how, when, and where I choose to travel is no one's business but my own.

 

[FriskyFL]

Tinfoil hats here, get your tinfoil hats, they're going fast....



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Amtrak Forum mobile app

 

[tp49]

Tinfoil hats here, get your tinfoil hats, they're going fast....



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Amtrak Forum mobile app

Just make sure that the shiny side is out.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The aggregation of power in the executive branch by the Enabling Acts is *very* similar to the powers (unconstitutionally) granted to the executive branch by the USAPATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation. Both were passed after "acts of terrorism" (in the 1930s case, the Reichstag fire).

Yeah, no. The Enabling Act gave Hitler the power to pass any law he so chose without any oversight or input from the legislative branch. The "PATRIOT" act gives the Executive a whole bunch of powers, but making up laws out of the clear blue sky on any topic ain't one of them.

Edit: The Enabling Act also said (paraphrased) "If you want to make a law that would ordinarily be unconstitutional, that's totally cool with us too. Whatever you want, man. It's all yours, have fun". Arguments about Constitutionality aside, the PATRIOT act at least has to pretend to be Constitutional and is subject to the Judicial Branch's oversight.

We already have a presidential kill list that ignores due process, the right to challenge your accuser, the right to be tried by peers, etc. If you gave Hitler a list of people he was legally allowed to kill and then let him decide who was to be included on the list the distinction starts to become rather uncomfortable.

 

[jis]

Some people here need to keep in mind that flying isn't always a choice, and those of us who fly are not sheep who blindly accept everything the government throws at us. When my employer needs me in Dallas tomorrow, what am I supposed to do? Tell them no? I don't think so.

Ryan's example of visiting his family in Hawaii is another good example of why driving and/or taking the train isn't always feasible.

And how, exactly, is Jis supposed to visit India?

And when I'm a bridesmaid in my friend's wedding, which takes place in Alaska, are you suggesting I take the EB and then drive across Canada? I don't have three weeks of vacation time stored up, nor would I use that much for something like that.

You really can't paint everyone with the same, broad brush. Sometimes, a desire to keep one's job and see one's family overrides the desire to tell the government to smeg off.

THIS!! I've often said the most annoying thing about flying is being called a sheep, or, alternatively, a sheeple because I choose to do so. I have only so much vacation time available to me, and, for instance, when I want to visit my uncle and his family in Illinois, I have to at least fly one direction so that I have time to visit. If I were to take Amtrak both directions, I would have no time to visit. And I have future trips planned that A) involve travel to Alaska and B) travel to Hawaii, all in the name of my quest to have visited all 50 states. I can't do either, especially go to Hawaii, without flying. Alaska, I guess, is technically feasible, but again it would take far too much time for me to drive there, even from my home here in Eastern Washington. And I don't know why yet again I'm defending my choice to fly. Whether I fly, ride the train, ride a bus, drive, bicycle, walk, or hop backward, how, when, and where I choose to travel is no one's business but my own.

<a-bit-of-jest-mode>I figure that if you are in a train lover's place you will get raked over coal for doing anything other than taking a train, by some extremists. It has more to do with assuaging their own fear/perception that they are viewed as freaks by everyone else. It's just the way things are. Nothing to worry about and no one really needs to defend flying or anything like that. A desperate need of some to feel morally superior to those sheepies is satisfied and all is good with the world. Keeps them from doing something worse perhaps.

</a-bit-of-jest-mode>

 

[andersone]

I reiterate: you can't defeat folks who are willing to kill themselves for the cause,,,,, This homeland security ***** lies at the feet of George the Second, who if you remember was elected only the hi-jinks of his brother the Governor. The more we give in, the more we lose. Shame on us for accepting such shenanigans. Just think if those TSA guys just cleaned Amtrak toilets,,,, what a wonderful world it would be,,, we could put two guys on each can on every train... and even Mr. Whipple would be proud.

 

[mkeroad]

3/16 the EB was boarded and the train held for almost an hour in Spokane East bound. The next night we were boarded after midnight and Border Patrol was running through the cars.

West bound on the CZ two weeks earlier we were boarded by Fed drug agents in Reno and they did what they called random profile checks. They had t-shirts and running shoes on with NO IDs. They went through all luggage of the selected pax. It seemed to me that they were targeting people of color so I presented this to my black sleeper attendant and he assured me they were not and this was a norm in RNO because the best stuff is grown in CA. and its legal in CO. money and drugs cross paths on the CZ. They opened a guys suitcase 2 weeks previous and he didn't even have a pair of sox, but, there was $130,000 in small bills. I would guess his bag was over weight.

These two were let off at the next cross road. not a scheduled stop and got into Reno police and state patrol cars.

I felt their presents and after Boston they can check my public transportation. The other stuff will be legal soon enough

 

[FriskyFL]

If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide.

 

[Ryan]

Screw that noise. It's called privacy. You may be fine with opening your life up to scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us has to be.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We already have a presidential kill list that ignores due process, the right to challenge your accuser, the right to be tried by peers, etc. If you gave Hitler a list of people he was legally allowed to kill and then let him decide who was to be included on the list the distinction starts to become rather uncomfortable.

That's the best example anyone's come up with yet. Congrats.

 

[jis]

It is possibly worse than that. I understand the President has actually a list of SIM cards, which are allegedly associated with individuals who are ok to kill. However there is no certainty when a SIM card is successfully eliminated, the person associated with it at that point is the one that was intended. It's quite bizarre actually IMHO that this whole charade passes Constitutional muster in some people's eyes. It just strongly suggests that a sufficiently scared nation will happily sacrifice it's founding principles, which is sad.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[amamba]

Don't forget to make a tin foil hat for your pets, too.

 

[neroden]

If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide.

In that case, I presume the CIA and NSA and DOD and so forth will be releasing all the so-called "classified" documents they have IMMEDIATELY. If they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

Right?

And just as obviously, they have no grounds for complaining about Snowden revealing anything. After all, if they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

Right?

(Actually, I think it's been proven pretty conclusively that the NSA and CIA are using "classified" as a smokescreen to cover up a hell of a lot of crimes committed by the NSA and CIA, so this is more true than you might think.)

 

[neroden]

It is possibly worse than that. I understand the President has actually a list of SIM cards, which are allegedly associated with individuals who are ok to kill. However there is no certainty when a SIM card is successfully eliminated, the person associated with it at that point is the one that was intended.

Yep. This information came out a few weeks back.

This is the most insane part of the entire business. It's almost certain that al-Qaeda affiliated warlords in Afghanistan are using this idiocy for their own benefit: planting "targeted" SIM cars on *their* enemies and getting the CIA to assassinate the enemies of al-Qaeda.

The total idiocy of this SIM-card-targeting-drone policy is so bad that it is actually aiding and comforting the enemies of the United States. Which makes the drone policy an actual act of *treason*.

It's quite bizarre actually IMHO that this whole charade passes Constitutional muster in some people's eyes. It just strongly suggests that a sufficiently scared nation will happily sacrifice it's founding principles, which is sad.

 

[neroden]

West bound on the CZ two weeks earlier we were boarded by Fed drug agents in Reno and they did what they called random profile checks. They had t-shirts and running shoes on with NO IDs.

That would have been sufficient for me to absolutely refuse to cooperate. They said they were federal drug agents -- without IDs, for all I know they're members of the Medellin drug cartel.

...though actually, given the history of corruption in the DEA, even if they were genuine DEA agents they could still be members of a drug cartel. h34r:

 

[Bob Dylan]

Does the end justify the means? (In other words if our enemies are sleeze bags and monsters should we be like them???)

 

[neroden]

Does the end justify the means? (In other words if our enemies are sleeze bags and monsters should we be like them???)

It's a good question. But we don't even need to ask this question... because as far as I can tell the means aren't doing a damn thing to achieve their stated ends. It makes one suspect that there are other, secret, ends which are actually intended.

A really dramatic example was when Bush was told, by, well, everyone, that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. But Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld *wanted* to invade Iraq, so they said "Sweep it all up, related and not", and started a propaganda campaign to claim that it had something to do with Iraq, in order to convince Congress to invade Iraq.

Or there's the Bush vs. Gore case, where the 5 criminals on the Supreme Court claimed that they were serving the ends of "equal protection" by the means of PREVENTING all the votes from being counted, and allowing the existing mishmash of different vote-counting rules to remain in place. Uh.... those means have nothing to do with those ends, guys. Perhaps you had some other ends in mind (like "installing our buddy into the White House whether or not he won the most votes").

We know that torture doesn't work at all for getting information -- tortured people will make up whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, so you get lots of useless, false, misleading information. So when Bush & company claimed that they "needed" to torture people in order to get information.... well, you have to start suspecting that they weren't actually doing it for that reason. They probably had other, hidden, ends -- such as getting FALSE information which they could use in propaganda ("Look, Saddam Hussein really was behind 9/11! We tortured this guy until he admitted it!"). Or maybe they were just sadists.

And *here's* a good place to make a comparison to Hitler. He promised all kinds of wonderful things -- "ends" -- to the German people. Hitler then made claims that "means" like putting the Communists in concentration camps, taking all the businesses away from Jewish people, or the annexation of Austria, would provide these wonderful things. Of course these means did NOT help achieve the stated ends. But with propaganda by Goebbels, people were bamboozled. When will people stop being bamboozled?